Hang it in the Louvre
Last week, the Mariners Player Development twitter account posted a graphic of Julio Rodriguez.
Hang it in the Louvre. ? pic.twitter.com/uIhzPuWppz
— Mariners Player Development (@MsPlayerDev) January 8, 2021
Adorned in a full uniform and sunglasses, Rodriguez’s bat is cocked just beyond his head as he begins his stride toward the mound; the #SeaUsRise hashtag in the lower left corner suggests a metaphor is at work. “Hang it in the Louvre,” the Mariners tweeted approvingly.
Compliments to artist Trevor Milless aside, this tweet stuck with me, mostly because it’s kind of odd. There aren’t many teams that retweet artwork posted on the club’s player development account, in part because most franchises don’t even have a player development account.
This is part of a pattern in Seattle. The Mariners have been rebuilding for a couple seasons and they’re not shy about promoting their good work. The major league broadcasts feature regular updates on the farm system, and the club’s TV network has aired a few minor league games. Jerry Dipoto even joined one of the broadcasts. All teams are proud of their minor leaguers, of course, but as far as I know, the Mariners are the only team to give one of them a YouTube show.
In a vacuum, there’s nothing wrong with this. Vibin’ With JRod isn’t for me, but hey, he’s a good prospect and I’m no marketer.
Inevitably though, the club is marketing Julio, The Potential Savior as much as Julio, The Person. He’s not the first 20-year-old to appear in a team’s marketing materials, and it’s not like anyone is forcing him to film these awkward conversations. Still, that’s a lot to throw on a guy who hasn’t played a big league game. That kind of social media exposure also provides an early-career reminder of the often transactional relationship between fan and player, as partially evinced by a Tweet later in the “Louvre” thread where a fan offers, “Julio is machine not man. Is there anyway you have a kelenic graphic like this? I want to hang them in my cave.”
Rodriguez, like most athletes his age, is a confident person. His Twitter handle is “J_Rodshow,” and the content flows as you’d expect from there. He posts videos of his own homers and amusingly accompanied one of them with “Hungry and humble” as a caption. I don’t begrudge him for it; he’s a young guy, the game needs a bit more showmanship, and Julio is nothing if not authentic. He signs his baseball cards like this, and I wouldn’t want it any other way:
Things start to get uncomfortable when you consider where this is all going, though. Rodriguez is a great prospect, and having been billed by his own team as a building block in the club’s future, he has understandably bought into that vision. He’s good and he’s chomping at the bit to get to the major leagues — which leaves him vulnerable.
The obvious vulnerability is financial. As Eric Longenhagen’s fourth-ranked prospect last year, Rodriguez comfortably resides in the tier of farmhands who are good enough to have their service time manipulated. He’s probably not quite ready for showtime just yet, and who knows how labor strife and the pandemic will affect his development timetable. But somewhere down the line, it’s not unreasonable to think he’ll arrive at a crossroad: Door number one comes with an under-market contract extension through his 20s and a ticket to the big leagues; door number two leads to minor league marination until his next service time threshold. Maybe he’ll get lucky and avoid this pitfall altogether. Then again, Vladimir Guerrero Jr. probably thought the same thing.
The ethics of service time manipulation and low-dollar, long-term contract extensions have been discussed at length, and I’m not going to try to replicate the fine work Jeffrey Paternostro and others have done on this subject. Recent precedent and the financial incentives in the league’s salary structure all but eliminate the possibility of an equitable outcome for Rodriguez, and unfortunately that’s the way it is right now. The imbalance can’t meaningfully be addressed until young players either make a lot more money up front or reach free agency much sooner, and who knows when that will happen.
Rodriguez hasn’t reached Triple-A and won’t be competing for a big league job in spring training, and paradoxically that’s what makes this situation so frustrating. He’s so young, and yet the path forward is predictable, paved by years and years of service manipulation and team-friendly pacts throughout the league. Only in the last year or so have the Mariners graduated an impact farmhand during Dipoto’s tenure, and yet the organization already has one such deal under its belt, the potentially nine-year deal contract they gave to Evan White.
Worse though is that, even if everything goes perfectly, things may not actually go perfectly. To illustrate that, we can look at Kris Bryant, who is in the last of his pre-free agency years.
Not long after the Cubs drafted Bryant with the second pick of the 2013 draft, it became clear that they’d landed a superstar. Soon after, it was equally apparent that the Cubs first and foremost saw him an asset worth wringing for every last drop of value.
Twenty-two year old Bryant tore through Double-A and Triple-A, hitting .325/.438/.661 with 43 homers across the two levels. That didn’t persuade the brass to call him up to a dreadful Cubs team down the stretch in 2014, nor did a torrid spring training the following year. The Cubs trotted out the now-familiar bad faith rhetoric about him needing to work on his defense, but gave the game away by recalling him 12 days into the season — exactly the amount of time required to ensure they’d get seven years of Bryant’s services instead of six.
Bryant himself was gutted to miss Opening Day. “I really wanted my performance this spring to matter,” he said at the time. “I just felt it didn’t matter as much (to them) as it did to me.” In that reflection on his demotion to minor league camp, he somewhat ominously added “I learned a lot about the game and the business. I think I’ll learn from it.”
Commonplace as this seems now, the move raised eyebrows at the time; teams had manipulated service time plenty often before, but never so brazenly with such a visible and obviously ready player. As we’ve all learned these past few years though, raised eyebrows and terse newspaper columns are not always a match for bad behavior, and the Cubs faced no meaningful consequences at the time. If anything, the Bryant episode might have done more than anything else to normalize this sort of behavior around the league.
But even though the Cubs succeeded on the field and the relationship between player and team remained cordial on the surface, the lines Chicago crossed during Bryant’s minor league tenure foreclosed any possibility of an iconic partnership. Bryant won the Rookie of the Year in 2015, and an MVP the following season, when the Cubs snapped their 108-year-long title drought. In a happier world, a Troutian contract between one of the game’s flagship franchises and premier players would have made all the sense in the world.
Bryant didn’t want to give his employer any more pre-free agency seasons though, and who could blame him? With Super-2 status and a $7 million signing bonus stored away, Bryant had no incentive to play it safe and the Cubs had no good will to bargain with. With no long-term contract in the works, the Cubs still got their title and Bryant got his hardware. Perhaps that was enough for both parties, but from a distance, the arrangement felt disappointingly business-like. Six years on from that fateful spring training, the team and Bryant have accomplished everything imaginable, and yet their time together won’t end with a standing ovation but with a whimper amidst rumors that he was nearly non-tendered. Like the Cubs’ almost-dynasty itself, this all could have been so much more.
Bryant’s experience demonstrates the potential folly of starting a long-term relationship on the wrong foot, which brings us back to Rodriguez. As likely as the prospect of service time quackery or an Ozzie Albies-like deal seems, there is another path forward. Morally dubious contracts are a choice, not an imperative.
If there is a way out of the efficiency trap, it lies in two virtues in short supply these days: competitiveness and decency. The value of the former should be self-explanatory, and there is some recent precedent. In 2019, the Padres broke camp with uberprospect Fernando Tatis Jr. in the lineup. Tatis was just 19 then, and valid concerns about strikeouts and his defense at short would have given San Diego legitimate cover if they’d returned him to the minor leagues. And yet they didn’t, in part to send a signal that the Friars intended to compete right away, but also simply because Tatis was the best shortstop on the team, and the best players get to play.
If for some reason competitiveness isn’t a sufficiently enticing reason to avoid these shenanigans though, perhaps decency can carry the day. As that relates to a club’s relations with an employee, that means playing someone when they’re ready and paying them what their production is worth. Every player deserves this kind of grace, none more so than someone like Rodriguez. The Mariners, of all franchises, should know the value of a team icon. With precious little success to hang their hat on, the Mariners most meaningful connection to their customers stems from the enduring links between the fans and stars like Edgar Martinez, Ken Griffey Jr., and Felix Hernandez.
In Seattle, Rodriguez is simultaneously unlikely to attain those lofty heights and more likely to reach them than anyone else in professional baseball. “Hang it in the Louvre” implies as much, and acknowledges the potential for a special bond; nobody has suggested that Braden Bishop’s likeness belongs in a museum.
It takes two to form that kind of enduring partnership though, and if Rodriguez must play well to fulfill his end of the bargain, then Seattle can at least show their respect by not bilking away his earnings potential. Whether you think the Mariners deserve the benefit in the interim is a matter of perspective. For now, the gulf between the carefully crafted image of Rodriguez as a potential franchise player and the financial contracts players of his ilk have signed recently remains uncomfortably vast.
Brendan covers prospects and the minor leagues for FanGraphs. Previously he worked as a Pro Scout for the Pittsburgh Pirates.
I don’t think there’s any way to guilt teams into this, and there are even fewer ways to change the rules to incentivize calling up prospects. I just don’t see it. I think the only way to address this is to reduce the service time requirements for arbitration and FA to make it so that when this inevitably happens the players wind up in the same place.
Agreed with the first point; MLB teams are businesses and expecting them to place “decency” over their shareholders’ financial interests is a poor bet.
However, there are ways to incentivize call-ups when the player is ready. One way is to set free agency to age rather than service time. But there would certainly be unintended consequences in that rule, which I am sure clever front offices would figure out. And I doubt there is any will on either side of the labor line to do that.
So everyone becomes a free agent in their age-29 season or something? I see merit in that. Guys like Bryce Harper and Manny Machado might not like it since it would delay their paydays but the 5th and 6th times they go through arbitration should give them a nice raise. Would be a really heavy lift in negotiations, though. Is that more important than, say, raising the minimum salary dramatically? Or moving arbitration a year earlier in service time? Those would also be heavy lifts.
I would suggest this: free agency is reached after 5.0 years of MLB service time, or if the player is 28+ years old on the last day of the MLB regular season (i.e. whichever comes first).
I could be talked into changing it to 29 y.o. instead of 28, but you get my point.
31 days should be a year of service time. So if you want to call up a guy in September and not have it count as a full year, great. But his first few days the next season put him at a year.
And if you want to hold a guy down for 5/6ths of a season for an extra year, I guess go ahead.
This will create April/May ‘cups of coffee’, after which struggling players would get demoted and never brought back up. Basically any setup where there’s a cutoff will create ways to optimize the use of that cutoff, some of which aren’t good for the player or the fans. Personally, I think at least part of the solution is to put players into arbitration from year 1 of their service time, whenever that cutoff is, so their compensation can be tailored to their performance (either upwards or downwards).
Unless you do something really radical like base service time on age (which I think would be even harder for the owners to accept), I’m of the mind that eventually, arbitration needs to come a couple years earlier than it already does. I know that every cutoff is arbitrary, and it will incentivize some service manipulation around that deadline, but I think you just have to assume teams are going to mess with the service time no matter what policy you put in place and make it so that the consequences of manipulation are less severe.
You might need to also do something so that teams don’t just send their pitchers to the AAA team 2 hours away for 3 days when they’re in between starts.
Isn’t the easy answer that a player becomes a FA after the sixth winter after they are on the 40 man?
100% agree that young players are being paid under market value in the current CBA, this is an anti free market system in which owners and established players bargained to bilk newcomers, who from what I hear don’t have a seat at the table. Hard to say the system was bargained for when a party adversely affected effectively had terms dictated to them.
That being said, while I don’t like that players (heck, anyone) get paid less than their market value, I also don’t love the idea that front offices shouldn’t make the best baseball choices they can from the incentives in the CBA. The seasons where the absence of a young Mike Trout caused a team to miss the playoffs are the exception, not the rule, so we’re talking a modicum of short term competitiveness vs very large long term benefits. In short, this is a problem, but the problem should be addressed in a rule change.
Perhaps the young players should form their own union if they are unhappy with the current union contract.
That’s not a bad idea. They’re a group that certainly doesn’t get represented well in the MLBPA (a frequent issue with collective bargaining in general).
Great essay. You’re right – decency and competitiveness are the two most likely paths out of another Bryant situation. MLB owners’ narrow focus on profit and efficiency is draining the sport of the emotional connections that make us fans want to pay attention and pay money in the first place.
Also, it is fair to note that while Evan White-type deals have a chance to turn out badly for the player (Brandon Lowe, who probably would have made a lot more money going year to year) in Evan White’s specific case it probably will turn out very well for him.
Evan White hit the ball surprisingly hard last year, when he hit it. I actually think he might be a breakout candidate this year. But yea, he probably got the best of the deal.
What a fantastic piece. Aside from the deep stats analysis and Eric’s great prospect rankings, thoughtful pieces like this are why I’m a paid subscriber.
Enjoyable essay to read, and it makes me wish I was a fly on the wall for the Tatis extension negotiations. Did the Padres earn goodwill with Tatis? Probably. Their organizational values must make it more likely that he resigns with them. I hope they reach a mutually beneficial arrangement that other teams can learn from.
As you noted, the Cubs received no punishment. But if the Padres receive measurable benefits from acting in good faith, that’s the other way that these service time decisions can influence future organizational decisions.
I wonder if Tatis being the son of a player meant that he had more knowledge and perspective on the process (not to mention some level of financial security) that other young players may not be so lucky to have.
Well, that’s what agents are for.
But not all agents are competent.
MLB is a closed system and in those it pays to have connections.
To me, the measurable benefit is the player committing to a continued relationship with the team. A lot of San Diego fans are expecting a team-friendly extension, and that doesn’t seem quite right. Play the player when he’s ready and pay him what he’s worth. Dividends include keeping a budding icon and a message to all players everywhere that the Padres organization respects its players and their self worth.
Thank you for this article which should be read aloud at the commencement of the next CBA negotiation session
To get the change you seek it would need buy-in from the least likely – the older guys and those approaching FA. There’s only a finite pool of resources. Once you factor in paying younger players more, it’s going to drastically effect contracts for those 29+ and those approaching FA now. You won’t see 28M+ AAV as nearly as often as you do now. Whether you consider that good or bad is up to you, but there’s also another effect. Small market teams like the A’s, Cleveland whatevers, TB, MIA, PIT, etc. can only exist by subsidy. The two big subsidies are cost-controlled talent and revenue sharing. Arguably, cost-controlled talent is much more valuable. How do you solve one (paying young players market value) without exacerbating the other (team competitiveness). If a new CBA favors paying young players their market value I don’t see how 30% of the teams in the league compete. That could be its own article.
Basically what I’m getting at, is you need to analyze the situation beyond one aspect. It’s such a shallow way of analysis (and reads more like a moral indictment than anything rational).
It would be interesting to see what direction the Rays, for example, would go in under systems that mandate they compensate young players more, since their entire business model is based upon getting the most out of pre-arb players and then shipping them away.
There would be no model. They would likely run similar payrolls except instead of being able to compete you would have barely above replacement guys who probably should be out of the league. You can’t force organizations to spend resources they don’t have. If folks thought league parity was poor now wait until you have a permanent 35% team under-class. If service-time, arb, and salaries for those players changed to resemble their market worth and got them to FA sooner I would be confident in saying that teams like the Rays, Pit, Miami, Cle, Milwaukee, Oakland, etc. would likely never make the playoffs again (barring some extreme changes like having 16 teams or something).
The article would have been interesting if it analyzed the consequences of what they proposed. It’s easy to parade around morals and should haves when you can ignore the results of said change. (This article is nothing more than a raise the min. wage riff…boring)
I agree – it’s one thing to pound the table about ‘decency’ (a subjectively defined concept), it’s another to take a hard look at the economics of the game and what would actually make sense.
But hey, this discussion usually starts with the prior that owners and teams are swimming in liquidity. that they’re simply not allocating more money to players out of greed/spite, and that all structures are built to reinforce the affluence of the powerful and not with any consideration of the economic viability of the game, or, minimum, if there is any economic cost to changes owners should just internalize it because they have enough money otherwise already. So once that’s all assumed there are only so many places you can go *shrug*
The problem is there are more young underpaid players than large contract superstars, especially on the lower budget teams. Make pre-FA salaries high enough and you’ll see teams ditching high arbitration salary players long before free agency. And that leads to permanent non-competitive teams, minimal attendance and TV ratings.
At that point contraction makes perfect sense.
Contraction would rear its head once more, this time for real.
There would be no direction for the Rays to go in.
Agreed.
Contrary to what some seem to think, teams do not have infinite budgets to start with.
And the union is going to have negotiate something in return for whatever mechanism they want to get higher pay to young players. It might be a harder salary cap, it might be a salary *range* for pre arbitration players with a lower in return for a higher ceiling or something else like larger permitted paycuts in pre-Free Agency.
It’s worth considering with the current system young bench players make the same minimum as young stars and the only option t eams have when a player regresses dramatically is non-tendering.
Above all, it is easy to say you want higher pay in the next CBA but it takes two to tango and the negotiations aren’t starting with a clean sheet but rather all the previous CBAs. Teams will always find ways to maintain their net, whatever it may be, up to and including higher ticket prices and blaming the Union. Care is necessary, as the past has shown, the threat of a strike only gets you so far.
I hope you hit on the head when talking about the Mariners understanding what a franchise icon is worth. As a long time M’s fan, it’s definitely worth more than 1 year of team control, I hope they set him up for success and let us see him play when he is truly ready, not when it best serves to get an extra year! It seems like that’s been the case though, as a franchise they do seemingly take care of their own, and I think it’s rewarded by guys re-signing when they’re not really a team that is ready to compete for a WS (looking at you Felix!).
Kind of odd to see an article here discussing service-time manipulation without at least mentioning Pete Alonso– victim of the most egregious example in recent memory.
Ultimately any manipulation of Pete Alonso’s service time that occurred by not calling him up in late 2018 was made irrelevant by not keeping him down at the start of 2019. He will still reach free agency and arbitration at the same time he would have even if he was called up in Sept. of 2018.
Also Alonso had significant defense issues. There were reports of him having a hard time playing catch pregame that year. He certainly had defensive issues at one point, those were not fake.
The worst part is when the fans turn on a guy like this as he gets closer to a payday. Bryant is the perfect example. The same people who dubbed Kris Bryant as “Sparkles” (gross and dumb) within that long lost fanbase are now leading the charge to trade him for precious cap space so that the team can start losing in preparation for The Future 2.0. This is what baseball fans are now.
As bad and gross as teams are, and it’s bad, we really should not underestimate that maybe the most vile people in the sport are us fans as a whole. End of the day, the owners are giving the people what they call for: cheap, disposable, and young. They market the prospects because fans are obsessed with even the POTENTIAL for a more EFFIZIENT payroll…The worst part of this is fans don’t see how they factor in and are a part of the problem, like to live in fantasy and gambling land where they are merely innocent bystanders watching greeedy uppity ungrateful millionaires, many who don’t look or speak like most in the domestic fanbase, take on the benevolent job creators above who have every right to make as much money using bidness as they can
Rodriguez is screwed and a big part of it is that the well wishers of today will be the ones most fervently pooping on his name once he’s taken out of the box
Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays
[Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays]
“Why should I change MY name? He’s the one who sucks!” – Michael Bolton
Bryant is overrated and since PEDs (and even then one can argue) paying guys in their 30’s inflated $$$ compared to their production isn’t a smart move if one wants to cheer for a successful franchise. You act like there is infinite resources and they should just pay whatever. Then you add in a weird racist jib without any evidence. It’s like the commenters on this site went from smart analytically minded folks to morally righteous ideologues.
Maybe there is a good argument to equalize salaries (<3 year service time stars, and those approaching their late 20's and early 30's – Trout, Betts, etc.), but then you also have to answer how do you keep the small market teams (of which there are many) competitive. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
“Bryant is overrated”
Generic and lazy 3 word statement is generic and lazy. The beauty of this phrase for the owners and their familiars is that you can swap Bryant with pretty much any name at any time and a 9 year old could find some numbers that corroborate within the ocean of statistics they’ve built for themselves. We’ve seen how quick and efficient they are about dismissing or diminishing success (see Bryant’s 2019 and career in general, the Cubs’ division win in 2020) too, how even quicker they are to hammer home failures (Bryant’s 2020), and how easily the brainwashed legions fall to their simple, algorithmic thinking (age, salary, WAR) after granted some long and intense conditioning. This is the game now, this is the modern baseball fan.
“You act like there is infinite resources and they should just pay whatever”
Not even a topic in my post. Like I was getting on, fans willing to make massive assumptions about what’s out there, doggedly guarding the owners’ pockets, is a problem. Not just baseball but really everything. Workers are more productive and making less money than ever, yet there’s always bootlickers spitting out generic but sensational lines like the two quoted here that sound true enough for most people to kinda just fall in line with
Fear not, you’re getting the dystopia you and so many others want. MLB is the NFL but baseball now. Shorter careers and less money (for the players, much more for the league) is happening to cheers, even as the average fan can’t afford to take their shrinking families to a game. We are building great things!
“how easily the brainwashed legions fall to their simple, algorithmic thinking (age, salary, WAR) after granted some long and intense conditioning.”
So what exactly is your paradigm for contracts then if it’s not tied to age, compensation level, or performance?
The “millionaires fighting billionaires” line of argument is reductive, and not helpful. But so is the “tell me who’s rich and I’ll hate them with the fire of a thousand suns” line. Baseball is a business, get over it. I as a fan don’t have to be on either the players’ side or the owner’s side, I’m on the side of an entertaining product with a sustainable economic foundation. That means, yes, there are rational discussions to be had about what a player should be paid, even if that means that a rich owner keeps more money in his/her pocket, and I frankly think that paying players big money simply because it makes us feel a sense of cosmic justice that money is flowing from the greatly wealthy to the less so is a quick way to a cruddy product. There are also rational discussions to be had about owners’ claims of pauperdom while refusing to open their books & increasing their net worth at public expense. It’s complicated, and the fact that you advance arguments that don’t recognize it’s complicated makes your arguments as simplistic as those of the ‘brainwashed masses’ you allude to. You offer no solutions, no data, only assumptions about the intentions and intelligence of everyone you don’t like (which seems to include a great many people), belying an egotistical world view that the nation is full of idiots and plutocrats, excepting yourself of course.
I apologize for the aggressiveness of this response, but I literally have zero patience for any argument that’s built on the premise that everyone who disagrees is brainwashed.
Interesting how he (senorgato) discusses brainwashed legions when every comment I’ve read of his talks about how terrible owners are and how rich people are bad.
fans are obsessed with even the POTENTIAL for a more EFFIZIENT payroll
Aren’t you a frequent contributor to a website (this one) that runs consistent analysis on the exact dollar value of a win?
These ideas are somewhat opposed but not mutually exclusive. There are things that aren’t absolutes.
Exactly the kind of article I come to Fangraphs for. Two thumbs up.
Have the Mariners said anything publicly about this? It seems odd to be tying an essay about frustration with service time manipulation to a 20 year old who hasn’t played above A ball.
As long as we all agree that delaying promotion to MLB when a player is clearly ready is morally wrong, in that it harms the person themself, then I’m all for these discussions. I’m just so tired of the contrarians who think “buh c, iz da market doh!” is an intelligent take on what is basically robbing young people of their talent so some billionaires can afford 1 more mega-yacht.
As much as I don’t agree with service time manipulation as good for business, I don’t think there is a solution that is easy.
If you can make this argument work for 70% of the minor league players, then I think the point could stand. Otherwise, I am worried this logic only makes sense for the big-name minor league players.
And if the point of service time manipulation is to protect teams, and fans, from losing a player early to free agency, and for lots of teams that can’t bid like the big markets, as one of the ways the league can keep a little bit of balance as a player can start to reach peak performance. Then disrupting or untangling this for an individual seems like killing the cow over split milk.
This issue we are trying to solve is a piece of string. If you cut one end to add to the other end, you still have the same length string.
Unless it’s based on age or service time within the team’s entire system, I don’t see how there can be a system that doesn’t have an arbitrary cutoff for one extra year of service time. Even if it were changed to the start of a season instead of a few weeks in, that would still incentivize teams to plan the promotion based on schedule. It would just be a lot less awkward and obvious.
I agree!
“The ethics of service time manipulation and low-dollar, long-term contract extensions have been discussed at length”
These two topics really don’t deserve to be lumped together like this. The latter is a bilateral exercise in balancing risk (the player certainly has a tangible benefit associated with financial security). The former is a unilateral move that has many more ethical questions associated with it.
This article was a giant bait-and-switch for me haha.